1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the preparation of a notarial deed of money consumption loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) stating that the Defendant lent KRW 200,800,000 to the Plaintiff at interest rate of 25% per annum. Accordingly, on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the executory power of 2015,296 of the notarial deed prepared by law firm number.

B. On March 9, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction with the Suwon District Court Branch D in relation to Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Plaintiff owned on March 9, 2016 as an execution bond for a claim under the instant notarial deed, and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on March 10, 2016 from the said court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not actually lend to the plaintiff money equivalent to KRW 200,800,000.

In the last place, the notarial deed of this case was prepared by coercion, such as threatening not to keep his spouse and consciousness without signing the document on the party letter, and thus, the agreement on the loan for consumption of this case is revoked.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant had a duty to lend KRW 200,800,000 to the Plaintiff pursuant to the loan agreement of this case, but the Defendant did not actually lend the above amount, and since the legal brief stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the loan of this case was served on the Defendant, the loan contract of this case was cancelled.

Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed, which is premised on the existence of a claim under the loan for consumption of this case, should be denied.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection should also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure, and the Plaintiff’s claim is established.